Holding phone tapping as a violation of the fundamental right to privacy, the Madras High Court on Wednesday made it clear that the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 permits it only for instances of public emergency safety or public safety and not for normal criminal investigation.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh, rejecting the contention of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that phone interception was necessary to prevent and investigate corruption, claiming that it constituted a threat to public safety, quashed the interception order of 2011 against the petitioner. The judge also declared as invalid all the telephonic communications pursuant to it. However, it was clarified that this order would not impact the evidence the CBI had gathered independently of the intercepted call records, and such evidence could be evaluated by the trial court.
The petitioner, P Kishore, the then Managing Director of Everonn Education Limited, had challenged the August 2011 order of the Union Home Ministry authorising the tapping of his mobile phone in a case related to bribery. The interception was linked to an FIR, charging an IRS officer, Andasu Ravinder, then Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, with demanding Rs 50 lakh bribe from Kishore to help his company evade taxes. The money was to be given through one Uttam Bora, a friend of Ravinder. On a tip-off, the CBI intercepted Ravinder and Bora and seized the cash. But Kishore was not present there, and no cash was recovered from him, and hence the petition seeking to quash the phone tapping order, which he contended was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, he submitted that the government had failed to follow the procedural safeguards laid down in Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules and the Supreme Court ruling in the PUCL vs Union of India case.
The judge observed that the wording of the statute’s provisions should not be stretched too far to include ordinary crime, as it would dilute the constitutional protection to the right to privacy. “Right to Privacy is now an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Telephone tapping constitutes a violation of the right to privacy unless justified by a procedure established by law. Section 5(2) of the Act authorises interception of telephones on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interests of public safety,” it was pointed out.
Further, the evidence collected was not placed before a review committee, as mandated in the PUCL case. As such, the phone tapping order was issued without due application of mind, said the judgment, adding that no matter how noble or well-meaning the intention, phone tapping cannot be justified without a public emergency or concern for public safety, as per the law as it stands at present.